[QUOTE=MisterC;523156]a quote: The bible says if you even so much as look at another woman with lust in your eyes.. You have committed adultery in your heart.

a response: Such a male point of view. It makes a lot of difference to the woman in question!

Then, there is me: Yeah, but if you go back to the first in order of the two mutually exclusive Genesis creation myths, you find that God is not singular but plural ("Let us make man in our image, after our likeness") and that this image was of both male and female ("He created him; male and female He created them"). The notion of "God" being a male I would consider as being misogyny. It was a "male's god" for a "male's world." Quite anachronistic in modern times, I would hope!

The Matthew 5:28 injunction against lusting is Jewish in origin and deals with the commandment "You must not covet your neighbor's wife." It wasn't unique to "Jesus."[/QUOTE]Sorry, I didn't realize "Bible" meant "Christian." I should have realized that, since Jewish scriptures are listed separately.

But in any case, that's not where I was going. I don't care how many people lust after me, as long as they don't DO anything about it. I see a big difference between the thought and the deed. So does Judaism, for that matter.

[QUOTE=MisterC;523156]a quote: The bible says if you even so much as look at another woman with lust in your eyes.. You have committed adultery in your heart.

a response: Such a male point of view. It makes a lot of difference to the woman in question!

Then, there is me: Yeah, but if you go back to the first in order of the two mutually exclusive Genesis creation myths, you find that God is not singular but plural ("Let us make man in our image, after our likeness") and that this image was of both male and female ("He created him; male and female He created them"). The notion of "God" being a male I would consider as being misogyny. It was a "male's god" for a "male's world." Quite anachronistic in modern times, I would hope!

The Matthew 5:28 injunction against lusting is Jewish in origin and deals with the commandment "You must not covet your neighbor's wife." It wasn't unique to "Jesus."[/QUOTE]Sorry, I didn't realize "Bible" meant "Christian." I should have realized that, since Jewish scriptures are listed separately.

But in any case, that's not where I was going. I don't care how many people lust after me, as long as they don't DO anything about it. I see a big difference between the thought and the deed. So does Judaism, for that matter.

[QUOTE=mlarue75;523974]Sorry, I didn't realize "Bible" meant "Christian." I should have realized that, since Jewish scriptures are listed separately.

But in any case, that's not where I was going. I don't care how many people lust after me, as long as they don't DO anything about it. I see a big difference between the thought and the deed. So does Judaism, for that matter.[/QUOTE]

I think the injunction is against "coveting," thus also relates to Buddhism (Samadhi - training the mind not to crave because this craving of attachments is a cause of suffering).

Of course, one has to remember that "lusting in his heart," the mythical David went into action and committed adultery with Bathsheeba and produced the wise, wise Solomon! (2 Sammy 11-12)

[QUOTE=MisterC;524547]I think the injunction is against "coveting," thus also relates to Buddhism (Samadhi - training the mind not to crave because this craving of attachments is a cause of suffering).

So the saying attributed to Jesus has no concern for the other people involved, only for the person's own state of mind? Perhaps so.

Of course, one has to remember that "lusting in his heart," the mythical David went into action and committed adultery with Bathsheeba and produced the wise, wise Solomon! (2 Sammy 11-12)[/QUOTE]Solomon spent lavishly, taxed the heck out of the country...and it fell apart after his reign. But for purposes of argument, let's say it turned out OK. You left out a few intermediate steps, however, involving two deaths. When David heard of Bathsheba's pregnancy, he sent her husband Uriah to his death on the front lines. Nathan the prophet told David that because he had sinned, the baby would die, and it did, much to David's grief. Solomon came along later.

Back to the lusting in one's heart analogy, Wishing you had your neighbor's car may make you lose sleep but it's different from going over and actually stealing it. You can be attracted to someone who's married to someone else, but if your desires don't become actions, it troubles only your own soul. It's when you act on it (as David did) that it causes a big problem for all concerned.

[QUOTE=MisterC;523156]a quote: The bible says if you even so much as look at another woman with lust in your eyes.. You have committed adultery in your heart.

The Matthew 5:28 injunction against lusting is Jewish in origin and deals with the commandment "You must not covet your neighbor's wife." It wasn't unique to "Jesus."[/QUOTE]One is hampered by not knowing if Jesus really said anything attributed to him, but everything he is said to have said was current in the Judaism of his day. You can find a lot in Hillel, for example. (A video recorder and a time machine should clear up any questions on the matter. Until then, all is conjecture.)

It just occurred to me that Jesus might have been "putting a hedge around the Torah" which means that if something is prohibited, we also prohibit any actions which might inadvertently lead to the transgression. Particularly this would apply if someone is doing everything up to, but just short of, the prohibited action. For instance (and I am making this up!) one might prohibit a person from raising a hand as if to strike a child, because that could lead to actually striking that child. I think this makes sense to us moderns.

This concept might apply to the OP's question but I don't know -- I have little insight into the heterosexual male mind.

[QUOTE=mlarue75;524684]So the saying attributed to Jesus has no concern for the other people involved, only for the person's own state of mind? Perhaps so.

Solomon spent lavishly, taxed the heck out of the country...and it fell apart after his reign. But for purposes of argument, let's say it turned out OK. You left out a few intermediate steps, however, involving two deaths. When David heard of Bathsheba's pregnancy, he sent her husband Uriah to his death on the front lines. Nathan the prophet told David that because he had sinned, the baby would die, and it did, much to David's grief. Solomon came along later.

Back to the lusting in one's heart analogy, Wishing you had your neighbor's car may make you lose sleep but it's different from going over and actually stealing it. You can be attracted to someone who's married to someone else, but if your desires don't become actions, it troubles only your own soul. It's when you act on it (as David did) that it causes a big problem for all concerned.

Thoughts do not equal deeds.[/QUOTE]

There, however, is no archaeological evidence that there was a Solomon or any of the building projects he supposedly accomplished. (There certainly doesn't seem to have been a United Monarchy.) He seems to be a fictive character, as do Moses, David, Abraham, and even Jesus. Much research is still to be done on the biblical writings, in my opinion. I believe we are looking (when we look at the Hebrew scriptures, at writings from roughly the Persian period.and even into the Hellenist period.

[QUOTE=MisterC;525051]There, however, is no archaeological evidence that there was a Solomon or any of the building projects he supposedly accomplished. (There certainly doesn't seem to have been a United Monarchy.) He seems to be a fictive character, as do Moses, David, Abraham, and even Jesus. Much research is still to be done on the biblical writings, in my opinion. I believe we are looking (when we look at the Hebrew scriptures, at writings from roughly the Persian period.and even into the Hellenist period.[/QUOTE]
You are discussing the story as possible historical fact? I was discussing the story as story, as recording in the book which is central to my religion. I don't give a hoot whether it actually HAPPENED.

[QUOTE=mlarue75;525103]You are discussing the story as possible historical fact? I was discussing the story as story, as recording in the book which is central to my religion. I don't give a hoot whether it actually HAPPENED.

Seems to me the story still illustrates my point.:p[/QUOTE]

Indeed. It is story. Many people don't realize that "history" as we know it is a product of the last few centuries.

You said earlier:
"Back to the lusting in one's heart analogy, Wishing you had your neighbor's car may make you lose sleep but it's different from going over and actually stealing it. You can be attracted to someone who's married to someone else, but if your desires don't become actions, it troubles only your own soul. It's when you act on it (as David did) that it causes a big problem for all concerned.
Thoughts do not equal deeds."

My point is that biblically, they indeed equal to deeds. They are in the "top ten" commandments and were put on the lips of Jesus. I believe the reason for this is that deeds arise from desires (coveting) and the authors of these scriptures understood this. The author of Matthew has taken the Markan sayings found in Mark 9:43, 45, and 47 and has tied them to both the commandment against adultery and about coveting (lust) in a fairly clever way.

If I could be permitted, just one bit of information about covetousness and how a first century Alexandrian Jew thought about it. Philo, The Decalogue, said, "Last of all, the divine legislator prohibits covetousness, knowing that desire is a thing fond of revolution and of plotting against oth4ers; for all the passions of the soul are formidable, exciting and agitating it contrary to nature and not permitting it to remain in a healthy state, but of all such passions the worst is deisre." (142) Later, summarizing, he states, calling desire "the fifth table," "The fifth is that which cuts off desire, the fountain of all iniquity, from which flow all the most unlawful axctions, whether of individuals or of states, whether important or trivial, whether sacred or profane, whether they relate to one's life and soul, or to what they are called external things; for, as I have said before, nothing ever escaptes desire, but like a fire in a wood, it proceeds onward, consuming and destroying everything." (173)

I try to look at The Tanakh, the Christian canon, and all of the extra-canonical writings of both religions within the zeitgeist, within the reality map of the first couple of centuries bce and ce. it is easy to look at things biblical from a modern perspective, but I feel this skews our understanding of what they meant when they were written. Yep, some seem timeless, but other things were written within a framework that is no longer valid. And, no, the Bible is not "the inerrant inspired word of God." It's a collection of books written mainly by men.

If I could be permitted, just one bit of information about covetousness and how a first century Alexandrian Jew thought about it. Philo, The Decalogue, said, "Last of all, the divine legislator prohibits covetousness, knowing that desire is a thing fond of revolution and of plotting against oth4ers; for all the passions of the soul are formidable, exciting and agitating it contrary to nature and not permitting it to remain in a healthy state, but of all such passions the worst is deisre." (142) Later, summarizing, he states, calling desire "the fifth table," "The fifth is that which cuts off desire, the fountain of all iniquity, from which flow all the most unlawful axctions, whether of individuals or of states, whether important or trivial, whether sacred or profane, whether they relate to one's life and soul, or to what they are called external things; for, as I have said before, nothing ever escaptes desire, but like a fire in a wood, it proceeds onward, consuming and destroying everything." (173)

I try to look at The Tanakh, the Christian canon, and all of the extra-canonical writings of both religions within the zeitgeist, within the reality map of the first couple of centuries bce and ce. it is easy to look at things biblical from a modern perspective, but I feel this skews our understanding of what they meant when they were written. Yep, some seem timeless, but other things were written within a framework that is no longer valid. And, no, the Bible is not "the inerrant inspired word of God." It's a collection of books written mainly by men.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, it's been a long time since I read or thought about Philo, It's terribly Greek, isn't it?

Torah is full of physical acts and retributions. Are you suggesting that Torah was composed in the Hellenistic period? I think most people date it to the Exilic or post-Exilic period, which would imply a different Zeitgeist entirely.